a stakeholder driven approach to optimize modeling and ... · 5/9/2019 · a stakeholder driven...
TRANSCRIPT
A Stakeholder driven approach to optimize modeling and monitoring of water resources
in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain
Jeannie Barlow, Wade Kress, Kathy Knierim, Connor Haugh
USGS, Lower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science Center
May 9, 2019
In cooperation with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, information regarding the Water-Supply Scenarios is preliminary and is subject to revision. It is being provided to meet the need for timely best science. The information is provided on the condition that neither the U.S. Geological Survey nor the U.S. Government may be held liable for any damages resulting from the authorized or unauthorized use of the information.
The Mississippi Alluvial Plain Aquifer: An Engine for Economic Activity
Agriculture in the MAP region • $6.56 billion total revenue• $11.88 billion total economic
impact
2017 agricultural gross domestic product (GDP)
• 84% Arkansas • 71% Mississippi
2Alhassan et al., 2018
USGS Science and Decisions Center
Central Valley
High Plains
MRVA
Maupin, M.A., and Barber, N.L., 2005
4
Water Budgets of the 3 most used aquifers, all for irrigation
5ET: evapotranspiration, RO: surface runoff (quick flow), RC: recharge (base flow)ET + RO + RC = Ppt + Irr
Central Valley
High Plains
MRVA
95%
95%
63%26%
10%
Water Budgets by State
LA
TNMO
MS
AR
6021
19
6126
13
7126
3
6921
10
6529
6
How do we take advantage of these water budget opportunities? Integrated water availability assessment
Water availability in the Mississippi Delta: optimized monitoring and modeling for water management
MONITOR MODEL
UNDERSTANDING
??
Recharge
HydrogeologicModel
Water Resource ModelWater Budget
Model UncertaintyData Worth
Web-based Decision Support System
Geophysical Mapping
Runoff
Surface-Groundwater Exchange
Surface waterModel
GroundwaterLevels
ET
Surface water Monitoring
Remotely Sensed ET
ET Monitoring
WU Monitoring WL Monitoring
HYSEP EconomicsModel
QW Monitoring
WU Model
WU Monitoring
Water Use Monitoring and Mapping Efforts
Water-Use Network
13
usgs.gov/centers/lmg-water
Measuring Water Use
14
Real-Time GW Levels
Real-Time Water Use
??HydrogeologicModel
GW Flow Model
UncertaintyData Worth Geophysical
Mapping
Surface-Groundwater Exchange
GroundwaterLevels
Hydrogeologic Framework Mapping Efforts
16
B. Minsley, 2016
Ground geophysicsGRACE
Bore
hole
s
Medical Imaging
17
MRI
Geophysical ImagingEMI
AEM Survey
18
Largest AEM effort for water resource mapping in the CONUS
Total planned +40,000 line-km
Feb-March 18: 2,500 ln-km• High-res survey of Shellmound, MS• 250m & 1km line spacing
Nov 18-Feb 19: 17,000 ln-km• Regional flight grid over MAP• 6-12 km line spacing + river lines
Summer 2019: 10,000 ln-km• Regional flight grid with Tempest fixed
wing system
More 2020-2021
http://arcg.is/01nraa
Grain Size
Sed. Type
SW/GWExchange Potential
Fine Coarse
Clay Sand
Lower Potential Higher Potential
Resistivity(ohm*m) Low High
Resistivity Color Scale for EM data
Medical Imaging
20
Geophysical Imaging
2D Profile
Depth slice
21
Water quality for availability
QW Monitoring
Preliminary information - Subject to revision. Not for citation or distribution.
Groundwater Quality Goals
23
Groundwater Age Tracers Salinity (Specific Conductance & Chloride)
Estimate Recharge Rates Airborne Electromagnetic Geophysical Survey
MERAS Model
Preliminary information - Subject to revision. Not for citation or distribution.
2018 Sampling
24
Spatial Variation of Chloride Over Time
25Preliminary information - Subject to revision.
Not for citation or distribution.
USGS Station Number 322605091301101
USGS Station Number 322623091294901
Years 1940 - 1949
Years 1950 - 1959
Years 1960 - 1969
Years 1970 - 1979
Years 1980 - 1989
Years 1990 - 1999
Years 2000 - 2009
Years 2010 - 2019
Preliminary information - Subject to revision. Not for citation or distribution.
Next Steps
26
Tracer Lumped Parameter Model (LPM)
Alternative Water-Supply Scenarios
• Irrigation efficiency• Instream weirs to increase
surface-water availability• Tailwater recovery and onsite
farm storage• Inter/intra-basin transfer(s)
Decrease GW Withdrawals
Irrigation efficiency in the Mississippi Delta; photo credit: Jason Krutz, MSU-DREC
Mundaring Water Treatment Plant, Australia; photo credit: http://www.water-technology.net
Alternative Water-Supply Scenarios
• Irrigation efficiency• Instream weirs to increase
surface-water availability• Tailwater recovery and onsite
farm storage• Inter/intra-basin transfer(s)
Decrease GW Withdrawals
• Enhanced aquifer recharge
Increase Recharge to the Alluvial Aquifer
Groundwater transfer and injection schematic
Image from Dr. J.R. Rigby, USDA-ARS
How much will water levels decline within the area of the Delta with the highest rate of water-level declines?
-35
-20
-24
-31
-27
-33-31
-27
-17
-8
1
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Irrigation Efficiency
DeltaWide Central
Delta
33%Adoption
66%Adoption 33%
Adoption66%
Adoption
10abstraction
wells
20abstraction
wells
30abstraction
wells
40abstraction
wells
Weirs –½ mile
service area
Q-T transfer½ mi
service area
Groundwater transfer and injection
Average water level decline within the area of interest at the end of 50 years
Base
-35
-20
-24
-31
-27
-33-31
-27
-17
-8
1
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Irrigation Efficiency
DeltaWide Central
Delta
33%Adoption
66%Adoption 33%
Adoption66%
Adoption
10abstraction
wells
20abstraction
wells
30abstraction
wells
40abstraction
wells
Weirs –½ mile
service area
Q-T transfer½ mi
service area
Groundwater transfer and injection
Average water level decline within the area of interest at the end of 50 years
Base
Key Findings
1. Irrigation efficiency practices implemented outside of the “cone of depression” positively benefit water levels within the cone of depression, and when combined with irrigation efficiency practices implemented within the “cone of depression”, result in greater water-level response than implementing irrigations practices within the “cone of depression” alone.
-35
-20
-24
-31
-27
-33-31
-27
-17
-8
1
-50
-45
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Irrigation Efficiency
DeltaWide Central
Delta
33%Adoption
66%Adoption 33%
Adoption66%
Adoption
10abstraction
wells
20abstraction
wells
30abstraction
wells
40abstraction
wells
Weirs –½ mile
service area
Q-T transfer½ mi
service area
Groundwater transfer and injection
Average water level decline within the area of interest at the end of 50 years
Base
Key Findings
2. The groundwater transfer and injection scenario was the only one that resulted in “recovery” after 50 years. Water-levels within the “cone of depression” were on average 1 ft higher than initial conditions at the end 50 year simulation.
Base Scenario
Land Surface
Initial Water Level, 2013
Alternative Scenario
Water Level Response
Land Surface
Initial Water Level, 2013
Water Level, 2063
Water Level, 2063
Economic Model for
each scenario
Cost per acre foot of water
level response due
to each scenario
How much will it cost? Connect water and economic models to estimate anticipated cost for
each scenario.
Economic Analysis: Most Realistic Scenarios
ScenarioEstimated Total NPV
Cost of ProjectAverage Water Level
Increase at Year 50 in Feet
Cost of Change -Average Foot of
IncreaseIrrigation Efficiency
Delta Wide $354,913,325 15 $23,660,888 Central Delta $9,295,469 10 $929,547
In Stream Weirs 1/2 Mile Service Area66% Adoption Rate $6,724,753 8 $840,59433% Adoption Rate $11,560,932 4 $2,890,233
Tallahatchie- Quiver 1/2 Mile Service Area66% Adoption Rate $51,427,291 4 $12,856,82333% Adoption Rate $49,113,657 2 $24,556,829
Enhanced Aquifer Recharge10 Abstraction Wells $52,762,173 8 $6,595,27220 Abstraction Wells $105,524,338 17 $6,207,31430 Abstraction Wells $158,286,513 27 $5,862,46340 Abstraction Wells $211,048,680 35 $6,029,962
Future efforts will involve optimizing multiple
solutions
?